![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall down. But stupid? I don't think so. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jay Honeck writes:
Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not) explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on the matter. Pilots are not unique in this respect. Many people are this way. It is a common personality characteristic, but not a universal one. I don't understand this characteristic fully, as I do not share it. If I tell someone something I know, I rather expect him to look it up, as I would. It's surprising if he takes it as gospel. I am not offended if he choses to verify what I say. Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete Instrument Pilot". Bob Gardner is occasionally on this group himself (or at least someone claiming to be him is). I wonder if he would feel compelled to argue with me as well. The stuff I have from Bob Gardner is so well-worn that the pages are starting to fall out, and I still have more on my wish list at Amazon. Anyway, I'm not worried about burnt bridges. All newsgroups have a steady turnover, so there are always new people to talk to. People with the attitude you describe are generally incompetent, so if they choose not to enter into discussion, so much the better. And there are always a few people who don't suffer from these problems and _do_ know what they are talking about, and will discuss aviation objectively no matter what the brat pack does. Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using your own? I've been using this pseudonym for years and I don't see any reason to change. I keep it to be slightly more anonymous, although anyone who expends even a modicum of effort can find out who I actually am. I originally adopted it to protect my erstwhile employer. I find that, over time, a gradual filtering process occurs: the stupid people stop talking to me entirely (which is fine) as they exhaust themselves with their own tantrums, the average people get over their emotional reactions and become more civil and eventually engage in useful interaction, and the smart people never suffer from these issues to begin with. Sometimes people who behaved foolishly at first become embarrassed by their initial behavior and tell me "well, you've changed," when in fact _they_ have changed in their interactions with me (I haven't changed in decades). |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steve Foley writes:
This is much less inaccurate than your other statement. No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use incorrect assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot knows (or should know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else being equal. (I know what someone will say about this, too, but I won't deprive him of the satisfaction of playing the game.) |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid. MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall down. But stupid? * I don't think so. -- I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. The problem with getting all of your information from books and the internet as distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just dont know what you dont know. You and I could read 100 books on neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how to perform a labotomy. But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. I wish I could help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under their wing and give him a taste of real life. Terry |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:34:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote: Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn. Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with someone who flies instruments daily. However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is correct. No, it's a case of applicability and context. You train to ignore your inner ear, but there are plenty of other sensations and cues which you do pay attention to whether VMC or IMC. Blanket statements and inability to accept correction or understand the context of the book is his issue, and regardless of what name he comes back as (which he won't do because he's too stubourn to know when to leave) the same issue will always be there. He needs to go back to the sim groups and stay where his simulator only posting is on topic. |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 18, 7:26*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is telling them. * Ahh, one minor detail as you are partially correct above, or I had a great instructor as I sure didn't learn this on my own. Ignore what your head sez (leans), but not what your seat of your pants (positive or negative G's) And this is normal full panel instrument flying. In IMC, the airplane is just an extension of your body and you get very intimate to what it's trying to tell you. To better equate it to you as a VFR pilot, it is no different then the last 6 inches of flight on landing :-) If you ignore the negative G's in your rear end on landing 6 inches above the runway, you will come down with a thump. If you feel too much positive G's in the seat of your pants on landing, you will float. When you hit that sweet spot between the two, you won't even know the wheels touch terra firma. Instrument flying is no different whether you be in level flight or on an actual approach. The fact that you were able to use your body's sensations to escape from a very serious instrument failure is a tribute to your piloting skills. *You may also wish to purchase a lottery ticket, because not all vacuum failures end so well. I may need that lottery ticket, not for surviving the problem, but the cost of a new regulator! Pump is fine, but the regulator does not appear to be regulating! 1.2 AMU is a preliminary estimate. While I would love to say it's my piloting skills, it really starts with the quality training I received from the get go. I just took my training to heart. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 18, 7:34*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
*I've only shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with someone who flies instruments daily. PLEASE, PLEASE go out with an IA pilot and touch a cloud! It's the folks that don't actively touch a cloud that gets in the most trouble, not the ones that do it daily. You have the means to do this, so really there is no excuse for you.. I put this in my original post and will reiterate it, ias it is sooooo important! I have taken VFR pilots and IA students up and even been safety pilot with newly minted pilots who never touched a cloud DURING an approach. The hood, blinders what ever you wish to call it doesn't compare to the real deal. MSFS doesn't compare to the real deal. A couple of the pilots had NO clue what it was inside IMC, and came out of it whiter then the cloud. Not because of turbulence mind you, but the fact they did not know which way was up or down. For the instrument pilot where I was safety, he was behind his airplane, enough to on the edge of dangerous. Not from his flying skills, but not knowing in detail what the procedures are in the ATC system AND making it work for him. He was getting a little overwhelmed just getting to his first fix! What is failing to be recognized in this entire thread is the workload is upped exponentially on instrument approaches. It's not a matter of picking up an approach plate, launching into the white wild yonder and flying a set of needles. It's not just a matter of flying needles. It's a mental process that will wear you down if you are not on top of your game and part of that game is feeling intimately (not verbal / non instrmententation) what your plane is telling you. It takes a combination of trusting the instruments, but also your senses. If you blindly trust your instruments without consideration they may fail, you will be a statistic. If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of your pants feeling. Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor. Mx BLANKET statement is dangerous at best, flat out wrong would be more like it. |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 18, 1:03*am, WingFlaps wrote:
As *a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted pilot... Very good excercise IMHO. Friend of mine posted in these forums that the pitot tube ingested a bug. While he may have had better odds hitting the lottery, things happen IN FLIGHT. |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On May 19, 12:56*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Fortunately, MSFS handles engine sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way. Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all. The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the aircraft, and with the proper equipment. For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound system with sub-woofer. *When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it sings. *When you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. *When you kill the engine, you can hear the prop windmilling. And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is wonderfully done. An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH harder to fly the sim with the sound turned off. *You don't realize how often you use aural cues in flight until they're not there. *(Which, BTW, makes me really admire the deaf pilots of the world. *Back before the troll wars reduced this group, there used to be a regular poster here named Henry Kisor who belonged to the deaf pilot's association, and I was always impressed that he was able to fly so well without aural cues. *But I digress...) Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker, you're absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. *But the sim software *is* creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require a good quality system to hear it. -- Nope, I detect there is no change in prop sound when you load it up and my computer does have a sound card. Maybe you are using one of Mx's famous add ons, but can you hear the prop disk meet off axis air?. Cheers |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Everyone pilot knows (or should know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else being equal. You should have quit while you were ahead, or at least not so far behind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |